Current Events > Man gets 33 years in prison for police murder by friendly fire

(+) Yeah! (+)

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I don't feel the need to repeat myself over and over again. Read the whole topic, for all our sakes.

Sounds like you need to read the whole topic.

Since your entire argument boils down to whether the cops actions were legal. Who is arguing whether the cops actions were legal?

---

Shablagoo posted...

You clearly arent because no one has defended the robber.

sure

---

Shablagoo posted...

You clearly arent because no one has defended the robber.

hes guilty of being a robber, not for the death of the policeman.

---

Gobstoppers, Felony murder is absolutely fucking bullshit. People should only be responsible for their own actions. Being charged with extra crimes because of the actions of someone else is fucked up.
Friendly fire in this sort of situation is the result of poor coordination among the cops. Not the result of the armed robbery.

---

Bass_X0 posted...

hes guilty of being a robber, not for the death of the policeman.

Yah, but had he not decided to be a criminal the cop would still be alive.

---

NatsuSama posted...

Sounds like you need to read the whole topic.

Since your entire argument boils down to whether the cops actions were legal. Who is arguing whether the cops actions were legal?

Stop. Giving. Him. Attention.

---

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Both the cop and the fake guy man were at fault. Do you not agree?

No. The criminal was at fault.

---

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

Yah, but had he not decided to be a criminal the cop would still be alive.

The cop would also still be alive if that group of cops were competent.

---

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

Yah, but had he not decided to be a criminal the cop would still be alive.

Had the cop been more training, or even legal reasons to care if he fucked up, the dead cop would still be alive.

Seeing as the cops are the ones who actually pulled the triggers and shot up the place.

uwnim posted...

People should only be responsible for their own actions. Being charged with extra crimes because of the actions of someone else is fucked up.

It's a reasonable law because it pertains to criminal actions that create a dangerous situation. If you force the police to shoot at you by waving a gun around and acting erratically, then you absolutely should be held responsible for what happens as a result.

---

viewmaster_pi posted...

sure

We are not defending the robber. They absolutely should be punished for their actions. What I, and others here, have an issue with is the criminal being held responsible for the actions of the cops.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's a reasonable law because it pertains to criminal actions that create a dangerous situation. If you force the police to shoot at you by waving a gun around and acting erratically, then you absolutely should be held responsible for what happens as a result.

No you should not.

---

uwnim posted...

What I, and others here, have an issue with is the criminal being held responsible for the actions of the cops.

So you're defending him from the consequences of his own actions. Keep in mind that he is the reason the police had to fire their guns to begin with. That's a consequence of his criminal actions.

---

uwnim posted...

No you should not.

We disagree on this point. Fortunately, the law agrees with me.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

So you're defending him from the consequences of his own actions. Keep in mind that he is the reason the police had to fire their guns to begin with. That's a consequence of his criminal actions.

No it fucking isnt. He is not forcing the cops to shoot each other. That is entirely on them. The cops are the ones aiming, the cops are the ones pulling the trigger.

---

uwnim posted...

He is not forcing the cops to shoot

Yes. He is. By carrying a gun reasonably perceived to be real, he is creating the need for deadly force. He is the sole reason why the police pulled their triggers. He created the dangerous situation with his criminal actions.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Yes. He is. By carrying a gun reasonably perceived to be real, he is creating the need for deadly force. He is the sole reason why the police pulled their triggers. He created the dangerous situation with his criminal actions.

Yes, and the police are usually competent enough to deal with the situation without shooting each other.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's a reasonable law because it pertains to criminal actions that create a dangerous situation. If you force the police to shoot at you by waving a gun around and acting erratically, then you absolutely should be held responsible for what happens as a result.

Yes, you should be held responsible for your actions. Similarly, the officers who failed to properly control their weapons, and are the direct causeof this death, should be held responsible for their actions. The law is unreasonable because it outright encourages officer negligence.

Bass_X0 posted...

Yes, and the police are usually competent enough to deal with the situation without shooting each other.

Tragic accidents occur. It's a grim fact of life. Police are human.

---

TheOtherMike posted...

The law is unreasonable

I very strongly disagree with you.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I very strongly disagree with you.

And you're objectively wrong because:

TheOtherMike posted...

The law is unreasonable because it outright encourages officer negligence.

TheOtherMike posted...

And you're objectively wrong

I don't think you know what "objectively" means, because it doesn't fit here.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I don't think you know what "objectively" means, because it doesn't fit here.

Considering your track record for misunderstanding the definitions of words itt, your opinions means nothing.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's a reasonable law because it pertains to criminal actions that create a dangerous situation. If you force the police to shoot at you by waving a gun around and acting erratically, then you absolutely should be held responsible for what happens as a result.

When was the cops "forced" to shoot without a care in the world to the consequences of shooting someone else innocent?

No one "forced" the cop to be incompetent.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Yes. He is. By carrying a gun reasonably perceived to be real, he is creating the need for deadly force. He is the sole reason why the police pulled their triggers. He created the dangerous situation with his criminal actions.

He is creating a situation where the police are likely to believe they should pull their triggers. This is different from making them pull. To make them pull, hed need to be attempting to coerce them into firing. Though even if you believe he is making them fire, that just explains how he got shot a few times. It does not explain why they were aiming at each other. Why they had coordination issues. Why so many shots were fired.

While they were justified to shoot, placing the blame on him allows for the cops to believe that nothing could be done. While not blaming him and instead saying the actions of the cops resulted in the death encourages thoughts and actions that could prevent them from having this happen again.

---

t5yvxc posted...

When was the cops "forced" to shoot without a care in the world to the consequences of shooting someone else innocent?

Tell me you don't understand volatile situations without telling me you don't understand volatile situations.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Tell me you don't understand volatile situations without telling me you don't understand volatile situations.

t5 doesnt need to. Its the cops job to understand volatile situations. Thats what they get paid to do.

---

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

Yah, but had he not decided to be a criminal the cop would still be alive.

You can't prove that.

---

uwnim posted...

He is creating a situation where the police are likely to believe they should pull their triggers. This is different from making them pull. To make them pull, hed need to be attempting to coerce them into firing. Though even if you believe he is making them fire, that just explains how he got shot a few times. It does not explain why they were aiming at each other. Why they had coordination issues. Why so many shots were fired.

While they were justified to shoot, placing the blame on him allows for the cops to believe that nothing could be done. While not blaming him and instead saying the actions of the cops resulted in the death encourages thoughts and actions that could prevent them from having this happen again.

Gobs logic says they shouldn't have to care as long as a criminal gives them a reason to shoot.

t5yvxc posted...

Gobs logic says they shouldn't have to care as long as a criminal gives them a reason to shoot.

I've never said they "shouldn't have to care"

I've said that the criminal should be held liable if somebody dies or gets hurt as a consequence of their criminal behavior.

Nowhere in this topic have I said that police are never responsible for reckless endangerment. This shouldn't be the third time I've had to repeat myself, but I guess it's to be expected around here:

asdf8562 posted...

Just because a criminal is in the room, the cop isn't all of a sudden free to handle the situation however the cops wants with no regard for the innocent individuals in the area.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

This is correct. Keep in mind, though, that there was a whole investigation and deposition involved. Facts were stated and analyzed. It was determined by the court that the criminal was responsible for the death and not the officer.

There's a system in place to take these things on a case by case basis. That's, like, the whole point of having a legal system with courts and investigators and such to begin with.

You understand that, right?

If the police are found to have done something wrong or reckless, I think that the officer responsible and the criminal who created the situation should both be charged with something relating to the death or injury, since both would be at fault.

---

I did not cheat. I mean i had sex with another woman but my wife created the situation for me to have to cheat. My wife cheated.

---

LordMarshal posted...

I did not cheat. I mean i had sex with another woman but my wife created the situation for me to have to cheat. My wife cheated.

That's not even close to analogous.

---

let me guess, he's black and the cops was white.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

That's not even close to analogous.

Its virtually the same thing.

---

Its just a difference of opinion at this point.

Gob thinks if someone commits a crime, anything that occurs as a result of it should fall on the one(s) committing the crime.

Like, if a cop is new or hasnt seen action and recklessly kills someone, Gob believes it is the one committing a crimes fault for escalating the new cop to that level.

In this scenario, the cops were incompetent buffoons. But Gob at least has consistent logic.

Folks just disagree that pinning everything on the criminal because we know that ultimately, that will lead to more incidents like this. Gob only cares about the law (that changes throughout the years), and thus, wants only the person who intended to break the law to be punished it seems.

I mean, cops just have the best role. Go in, fuck up, and nothing else happens. Must be nice.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I've never said they "shouldn't have to care"

I've said that the criminal should be held liable if somebody dies or gets hurt as a consequence of their criminal behavior.

Nowhere in this topic have I said that police are never responsible for reckless endangerment. This shouldn't be the third time I've had to repeat myself, but I guess it's to be expected around here:

In otherwords, you argue the cop doesn't need to care then as long as the law protects their negligence and incompetence. You argue the cop is not responsible for his own actions, a discussion which is irrelevant to whatever the law says.

The law is on their side and people have provided you even worse scenarios of cops legally getting away with recklessly killing innocent people.

You argue they don't need care for accountability as long as the law rules everything they did was peachy. Your logic says cops can just legally not care and place the blame on anyone but themselves for their own actions, to only do it yet again. The law said it was legal blindly spray a house, or shoot some the cop was hysterically playing Simon says with.

As long as it's legal, whatever done under the law is infallible!

You're right, this shouldn't have to be repeated, but ya..here we are.

t5yvxc posted...

In otherwords, you argue the cop doesn't need to care then as long as the law protects their negligence and incompetence

It's up to the DOJ and DA etc to decide whether or not to pursue a reckless endangerment charge in cases like that. I'm of a mind that gross negligence should merit punishment, but also accidents happen and it's nearly impossible to be mindful of every conceivable variable in a tense standoff with an armed criminal.

I think the burden of proof for reckless endangerment in police shooting situations should be very strict, but not insurmountable.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's up to the DOJ and DA etc to decide whether or not to pursue a reckless endangerment charge in cases like that. I'm of a mind that gross negligence should merit punishment, but also accidents happen and it's nearly impossible to be mindful of every conceivable variable in a tense standoff with an armed criminal.

I think the burden of proof for reckless endangerment in police shooting situations should be very strict, but not insurmountable.

Once again it needs to be repeated, and try to follow along this time.

Show me who in this topic is debating was the cops actions legal. You claim you understand this, yet post later you circle back to, "but the law said the cops actions was legal."

Most if not everyone is not arguing was the ruling legal.

t5yvxc posted...

Show me who in this topic is debating was the cops actions legal. You claim you understand this, yet post later you circle back to, "but the law said the cops actions was legal."

I'm not arguing about the actions being legal. We've established that they're legal. I'm arguing about the validity and reasonability of the law itself. I think it is perfectly reasonable and should continue to stand just as it is.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I'm not arguing about the actions being legal. We've established that they're legal. I'm arguing about the validity and reasonability of the law itself. I think it is perfectly reasonable and should continue to stand just as it is.

Post 138 literally has you arguing that it's up to the DOJ and DA to determine if it's worth charging the cop based on the law.

So no, you still have not grasped most if not everyone here is not discussing if the cops actions were legal. If at any point you start bringing up the courts ruling against the cop, a judge, jury or any authority whatsoever on the ruling based on the law..then you would still not being addressing what most have pointed out in this topic.

The entire basis of your entire argument you constantly circle back to, "but it's the law."

Dude put himself in a situation that caused another human life to be taken. He set off the chain of events that killed the officer.

thats the law. This was always the case.

t5yvxc posted...

Post 138 literally has you arguing that it's up to the DOJ and DA to determine if it's worth charging the cop based on the law.

I'm talking about in general, not this case in particular. I'm arguing in support of the law because it has avenues through which an obvious case of recklessness or negligence can still be pursued and punished.

t5yvxc posted...

The entire basis of your entire argument you constantly circle back to, "but it's the law."

I'm not just saying "but it's the law," I'm saying that the law is a good law and that I support its function.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I'm talking about in general, not this case in particular. I'm arguing in support of the law because it has avenues through which an obvious case of recklessness or negligence can still be pursued and punished.

Yet the law shows cops constantly having complete neglect for surrounding innocent life, getting innocent people injured or killed. To only be found not guilty or at fault at all for the cops own actions. Actions that too often show the cop having no regard for life at all.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I'm not just saying "but it's the law," I'm saying that the law is a good law and that I support its function.

Then stop circling back to a varient of, "but it's the law." "But it's the law" doesn't make something a valid law. The history of America alone is showered in bad laws that people like you mindlessly defend because "it's the law." Nevermind human history and shitty laws.

Duels were legal until they were not
Slavery was legal until it wasn't
Child labor used to be legal, until it wasn't
Domestic violence used to be legal, until it wasn't.

We could go and on on, and in this present day there's loads of examples of this law being demonstrably flawed.

Arguing "but it's legal" does not remotely make the law existing in its iteration a good thing.

t5yvxc posted...

Arguing "but it's legal" does not remotely make the law existing in its iteration a good thing.

Then it's a good thing that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing in favor of the law's continued existence because I think it serves a vital function. Criminals should definitely be held responsible for the consequences of their criminal behavior.

All of the consequences.

---

fair next

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Then it's a good thing that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing in favor of the law's continued existence because I think it serves a vital function. Criminals should definitely be held responsible for the consequences of their criminal behavior.

All of the consequences.

Cops should be held for theirs.

You have yet to provide one reason why they shouldn't beyond, "but it's the law that criminals take all the blame for cops going in and being completely incompetent and negligent."

t5yvxc posted...

You have yet to provide one reason why they shouldn't

I never said they shouldn't.

Hence the thing I've repeated like four times that I'm tired of repeating.

Go read post #131 again. Pretend that's my response to you.

Especially this part:

Gobstoppers12 posted...

If the police are found to have done something wrong or reckless, I think that the officer responsible and the criminal who created the situation should both be charged with something relating to the death or injury, since both would be at fault.

---

Imagine the dangerous slippery slope it would create if we forgive cops of wrongful shootings, on the basis of someone else must be at fault, the police are always perfect and faultless even when they shoot someone else wrongfully.

---

Shit happens in firefights, the cop isn't necessarily at fault. But of course if the cop IS at fault, he should be dealt with too.

But regardless, it's still on the criminal for creating the situation and he should be punished either way. If I hold up a bank, and a hostage dies because she forgot her vital medication at home and can't go home to get it because I locked her in a closet, that rightly should be on me for holding her hostage, I can't say "Hey, not my fault she fucked up and forgot her vital medication, I can't be responsible for other people's negligence".

---

TheOtherMike posted...

The accident was explicitly caused by the officer who fired their weapon without ensuring their target.

They are both at fault. The cops wouldnt have to fire their guns if not for the subhuman thief. And the cops obviously need better training. Put the cop who killed the other cop in prison along with the thief, both deserve it